Approved Submission [Lazarus] - Manportable Microcannon "Silva"

As with the other article I posted on, this is on the docket for review. Are you still working on this?

No, its good to go I think.

This review is for: [Lazarus] - Manportable Microcannon "Silva"

The submitted article is/has…
[x] A very high level of overall quality
[ ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[ ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)
[-] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[ ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[ ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[x] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[x] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[x] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[x] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[x] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[x] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[x] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[x] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[x] Lacking Detail
[x] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[-] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[ ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[x] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[-] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.


Summary
The article itself seems to be fine, as far as weapon designs go. I'm not super fond of the formatting but it works, and I'm able to parse what it is and what is does fairly well. There are some basic problems, though:

1. Your 'physical description' and 'mechanism' sections, along with the 'output' and 'when firing' sections are often mutually redundant.
2. It lacks art, which is an issue for new firearms in fairly well-established factions.
3. The general text isn't formatted correctly. Beneath the title you add one or two phrases at most and describe your item with the optimal brevity. The remaining text can go to other sections.
4. I'm unsure if I trust that a multiband electromagnetic wave emitter can disrupt everything considered a 'beam weapon' since this includes a broad category of possible systems. While SARP tends to play fast and loose with physics, you need to either elaborate on this specific mechanic better, make it a seperate submission or remove it. It seems to have been included as something of an afterthought. Does this affect all beams at all mecha/armor-scale damage ratings? Reducing an ADR 5 beam to ADR 1 is a substantial feat compared to 3 or 2 -> 1.
5. This needs wikilinks. There is almost no red hyperlink text anywhere, which means it's a dead-end when browsing the wiki. As a user experience thing, it's sort of unacceptable.

Status: Pending

Notes
Formatting needs to be adjusted, balance issues need to touched on. Given your situation and the loss of your stylus, I think it may be acceptable for you to put up an old filler piece or something to stand in for it or to give a raincheck.

Approval isn't too far off, otherwise.

I intend to finish this review by: FINISHED

Will fix this when I get some support from Doc to finalise it.

@OsakanOne - are you still working on this? I'll pick it up for review if you'd like, but the biggest thing in its way would be the grammar. Otherwise, this microwave cannon looks relatively good.

I am. I've been dragged to detox from a family death with friends in London but I return tomorrow for some delivery.

Grammar can be fixed but not at least for another 24 hours. I'm happy to fix the grammar if the contents good.

It's no problem - IRL takes priority. Just post here or tag me when you're ready to get started.

Alright, I've got a few days or so to continue with.

Alright, done some editing. Sorry this is taking so long.

Imagery will be done within a week at most. Attack at your own leisure.

It's better, but we still got a ways to go I think.

It may not be the correct term, but I think we have several "run on sentences" that can be divided into two or even more individual sentences. The run-ons have topics or things that are related to each other, but are distinct enough they warrant a period and a few words to turn them into their own sentence. Looking at the submission, it's almost like reading a 'stream of thought' in some spots. Fortunately, it looks like the worst offenders are just these two;

- The second sentence in the About section
- The sentence in the Official Story section

The next problem with the article may be tougher to deal with though; right now, it's layout is rather confusing when compared to most other weapons. It's damage rating is rather vague for an example, and is jumbled in with various other notes that are unrelated to it. Meanwhile, its physical description/appearance is all the way at the bottom, when the majority of articles on the site have it closer to the top. I suggest you go over the Weapons Template and go from there; just keep in mind it's a general guideline. You don't have to make it exactly like that.

The damage doesn't... Its complicated. It isn't one flat damage distribution: It depends not only on the chemical composition of the target but also the chemical allotrope and orientation, as well as the chemical state.

That's what its made of, how that's arranged and whether its a solid, liquid or gas. All of these things hugely influence how effective it either is or isn't.

Osaka, you're over-complicating this and requiring GMs to know the target's chemical allotrope, molecular orientation and chemical state in order to properly use this in RP. That's not acceptable. I know the physics involved behind the behavior of a weapon like this, but keep in mind that it's being designed for role-play; a game. It needs to be simplified so that it's easy to work with. At the very most, make a damage quick-chart for what the weapon does to Shields, Armor and Organic Tissue individually. Due to how the weapon works, you may consider having the damage it does against tissue be ADR 4 - the realm of overkill - while armor and shields take more modest damage.

Added the specifics. Not in a state of mind where I can do a proof-read myself. Probably won't be for a few weeks.

Broke the damage ratings down into something simpler. Not feeling too good right now. What else needs doing?

We're getting there.

The next biggest thing that needs to be done is to appropriately organize the article. Though weapon template is a guideline that can be changed as necessary, but a lot of this is scattered to the wind, or given titles that aren't the most indicative of their content. I'll try and sum it up in bullet points to make it easier to keep track of and work with.

• Separate the About Section into an "About" and a "History", since there's a good portion of history concerning its research and development and not just a little bit
• A lot of the info under sections "Performance and Characteristics" and "Mechanism" can go under the About section, but in brief
• Remember that the About section summarizes what the weapon is, what it can do and why
• "Discharge" and "Output" are not accurately representing what they're describing; break down the information here regarding the weapon's effects or lack of in a similar manner to the weapon template

Thanks for having the patience to work with me, CN.

You've got good ideas, so it's definitely worthwhile. Message this thread again when you're ready for the next steps.

Where are we with this at the moment?

Bullet-points. List. I want to crack on and get this done.

Thank-you for your enthusiasm in me and my work, even if progress is spotty or slow.

It is a great help to my mood and greatly helps me with my depression.

I'm sorry if I come off as cocky sometimes: I do not intend to be a tyrant or an Uso.

Thinking about it, I do miss Uso.

His tendency to shoot down threads was problematic but I also learned a lot from him.

I wish he could come back, even if only in a limited form: for example, only being able to submit technology via proxy of another player and not being allowed to argue directly on the technical boards. Another thing that we could do is specifically prison his character and force him to produce a new on that doesn't inherit his empire, so he doesn't have his forces behind him.

Speaking of, what is happening to those assets and forces? Is Kampfer or are you in possession of them?

I'm sorry if I'm rambling a little bit. I'm in a state of shock because we recieved a text that my husband's mother had died.

She isn't dead, but I do wish I could murder autocorrect sometimes.

Don't worry, Leigh. you're doing just fine.

@CadetNewb took this up from Exhack, so he is your finisher.

I'm confused and sorry for your loss.

As for Uso, it's like he went on a campaign to actively burn bridges and get a high score on that. Combined with the fact that he had made enemies with people who were originally ok with him doesn't help either. And without a Casus Belli in many of those cases too. Actions should have consequences, and the fact he's been banned should reflect that. Honestly, if he were reigned in and given the paddle earlier on, Uso may not have gotten so out of hand to the point that it had. Maybe. I really can't say since I don't know the guy that well.

And with the article itself here, we're basically where we last left off. My previous post made a few suggestions with things to try. With the 'About' section in particular, I suggest having it just focus on the weapon, with a brief mention of its true intents in the form of a sentence or two at the very most. The 'History' section would take care of that in-detail instead.